There are apparently few shades of grey in the Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon saga. In political circles, and of course on X, you either think Ms Sturgeon has done absolutely nothing wrong, or has done absolutely everything wrong.

Alas, I feel compelled to say that there are considerably more shades of grey involved here than many would have us believe. I expect my analysis of this mess to be popular with almost nobody, but nonetheless here I go, jumping two-footed into this, with tin hat firmly on.

I would, first and foremost, encourage people to accept the notion that two apparently competing assertions can be true at the same time. So, it is entirely reasonable to believe that Ms Sturgeon’s professed lack of knowledge of Mr Murrell’s crimes is true, whilst also believing that the scrutiny she is receiving is legitimate.

This story has more cut-through to the dinner table than arguably any other in the history of devolution, so individuals all over the country will have made their gut judgement call on ‘did Nicola know?’. My gut tells me that Ms Sturgeon is telling the truth when she says that she was unaware of what her husband was up to. It seems fairly well accepted that their marriage was not conventional, that her job meant they spent significant time apart, and that there was a limited financial relationship.

Unionists can’t see how close independence actually is

Enough is enough - we need new political parties

Whomever wins, we’re all in this together

Forget the yachts; Offord and Greer are having a real debate

A limited number of the goods purchased made it to the family home, over a fairly long period of time, and none would necessarily raise........

© Herald Scotland